DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the patent application filed 3 August 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
[3] Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble of claim 1 directs the claim to “…A computer implemented for managing a plurality of data objects based on an actionability status of at least one data object element, the method comprising…”. The preamble appears to omit the indication that the claim is directed to a “computer implemented method” as indicated in the preamble(s) of each of dependent claims 2-18, which depend from claim 1. Examiner assumes the intention is to align claim 1 with the associated dependent claims and present a method/process that is a “computer implemented method”. Examiner further assumes a typographical error/oversight to be corrected on the next response. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
[4] Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 19, and 20 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of managing data objects (i.e., project tasks) including allocating objects/tasks to project participants/users in accordance with a status/actionability of the object/task, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity (NOTE: Examiner notes paragraphs [0065]-[0066] of the Specification as originally filed in which specifies: “…data object elements generally refers to aspects of a project which need to be completed, such as project tasks and project milestones…”). In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed allocating/assigning objects/tasks and associated data to participants in a project as tasks are identified as being in a state of actionable, i.e., ready for completion or task performance by the participant/user, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing commercial interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., directing actions based on rules or instructions).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1. In particular, claim 1 includes:
“…a plurality of data objects scheduled for multiple executions over a period of time, the plurality of data objects comprising at least one of an execution deadline, an initial expected execution date, a dynamic expected execution date, a delay time, at least one data object element, wherein each data object element is associated with an actionability status, the actionability status determined based on at least one data object element dependency, wherein the actionability status comprises at least one of actionable, not actionable, and completed…providing…access to a plurality of users…so each user is able to, in real time…at least one of view at least a portion of the plurality of data objects, update at least a portion of the plurality of data objects, and provide status information associated with at least a portion of the plurality of data objects; identifying, from the plurality of data objects, at least one actionable data object element, the at least one actionable data object element identified based on the actionability status wherein identifying comprises identifying at least one data object element having an actionability status of actionable; obtaining status information associated with the at least one actionable data object element, the status information comprising information associated with progress of the actionable data object element; automatically updating the…plurality of data objects, the updating comprising updating at least the actionability status of at least one different data object element based on the obtained status information associated with the at least one actionable data object element; and updating…the plurality of data objects so that users have up to date information regarding a status of at least one of the plurality of data objects, the updating comprising providing the at least one identified actionable data object element…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of managing data objects (i.e., project tasks) including allocating objects/tasks to project participants/users in accordance with a status/actionability of the object/task, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing commercial interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., directing actions based on rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “a cloud scheduler at a cloud server”, “data objects”, “network”, and “a graphical user interface (GUI)”. Claim 1 further indicates, generally, that the claimed method is “computer implemented” as designated in the preamble. Claims 19 and 20, directed to a system and non-transitory computer readable medium introduce “control circuitry” and processor-executable “instructions”. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “computer”, “circuitry”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “a cloud scheduler at a cloud server” is identified as storing and updating data objects/task information and generating and providing access to the graphical user interface for displaying task/data objects to users over a network.
(3) The “data objects” is/are identified as comprising project task and milestone information that can be accessed/viewed by users over the network.
(4) The “network” is identified as facilitating accessing and updating data objects/tasks via the graphical user interface.
(5) The “graphical user interface” is identified as being generated by the server, being accessed via the network, and displaying the plurality of data objects.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., data objects/tasks are stored, updated, and displayed to users, status of data objects/tasks are determined, data objects/tasks are accessed and displayed to users for the purposes of prompting action on the tasks by the users etc.) as associated with a respective “scheduler/server”, “circuitry/instructions”, and/or “graphical user interface”. Beyond the general statement that data objects/tasks are accessed are stored, updated, and viewed via the server and GUI, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “scheduler/server”, “circuitry/instructions”, and/or “graphical user interface” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a server” or “by a server”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., data object/task information); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., data object/task information); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., data object/task information); and (4) performing repetitive mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., identifying actionable tasks and users to perform tasks) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of managing data objects (i.e., project tasks) including allocating objects/tasks to project participants/users in accordance with a status/actionability of the object/task using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed managing data objects (i.e., project tasks) including allocating objects/tasks to project participants/users in accordance with a status/actionability of the object/task benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0109]-[0123]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “computer”, “circuitry”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “a cloud scheduler at a cloud server” is identified as storing and updating data objects/task information and generating and providing access to the graphical user interface for displaying task/data objects to users over a network.
(3) The “data objects” is/are identified as comprising project task and milestone information that can be accessed/viewed by users over the network.
(4) The “network” is identified as facilitating accessing and updating data objects/tasks via the graphical user interface.
(5) The “graphical user interface” is identified as being generated by the server, being accessed via the network, and displaying the plurality of data objects.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., data object/task information); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., data object/task information); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., data object/task information); and (4) performing repetitive mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., identifying actionable tasks and users to perform tasks).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of managing data objects (i.e., project tasks) including allocating objects/tasks to project participants/users in accordance with a status/actionability of the object/task. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., managing data objects (i.e., project tasks) including allocating objects/tasks to project participants/users in accordance with a status/actionability of the object/task, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of managing data objects (i.e., project tasks) including allocating objects/tasks to project participants/users in accordance with a status/actionability of the object/task benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 19 and 20, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 11, and 15-17 further provide conditions and determinations that are made with respect to the general storing, updating, and displaying of data objects to assigned users. These functions are limited to general data storage, transmission, and display performable by generic computing components.
NOTE For Applicant’s Benefit: Claims 15-17 recite functions in which objects/tasks are displayed to specific users based on observed assignment information and actionability of the task/data object. Examiner suggests review of Example 37 introduced in the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) (see MPEP 2104.04(a)(1)), which rearranges icons on a GUI based on a determination of access pattern/usage of the icons by a particular user. A review of the noted example could potentially assist Applicant with amendments to overcome the present rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, as presented, the displayed data objects/tasks are identified and displayed to users based a general status observation of the tasks/objects that is achievable through general human observation and a subsequent display of the objects/information that is performable by a generic computer display.
Dependent claims 2-18, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
[5] Claim(s) 1-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrni et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0097739 hereinafter ‘Fahrni’) in view of Knijnik et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0249574 hereinafter ‘Knijnik’).
With respect to claim 1, Fahrni discloses a computer implemented [method] for managing a plurality of data objects based on an actionability status of at least one data object element, the method comprising: storing, by a cloud scheduler at a cloud server, a plurality of data objects scheduled for multiple executions over a period of time (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0005] [0040]-[0041][0059]-[0060]; See at least server, cloud-based task management, data objects and associated tasks stored for future task executions/performance), the plurality of data objects comprising at least one of an execution deadline, an initial expected execution date, a dynamic expected execution date, a delay time, at least one data object element (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0061]-[0062]; See at least data object and task due date and completion status. See further modifiable due date), generating, by the cloud scheduler at the cloud server, a graphical user interface (GUI) for displaying at least one of the plurality of data objects (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0030]-[0033] [0048]; See at least GUI’s generated for display of data objects and tasks for assignors and assignees); providing remote access to a plurality of users over a network so each user is able to, in real time through the graphical user interface associated with each user, at least one of view at least a portion of the plurality of data objects, update at least a portion of the plurality of data objects, and provide status information associated with at least a portion of the plurality of data objects (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0032]-[0033] [0038] [0067]; See at least remote access via client-server configuration and GUIs. See further entry and updating of completion status of task/object); identifying, from the plurality of data objects, at least one actionable data object element, the at least one actionable data object element identified based on the actionability status wherein identifying comprises identifying at least one data object element having an actionability status of actionable (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0059]-[0061] [0067]; See at least assignment of tasks/objects to assignee based on determination/identification of task completion status/indicator/toggle, i.e., not completed is reasonably a form of “actionable”); obtaining status information associated with the at least one actionable data object element, the status information comprising information associated with progress of the actionable data object element (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0023] [0061]-[0062]; See at least visible task and data object status including at least completion status); automatically updating the stored plurality of data objects, the updating comprising updating at least the actionability status of at least one different data object element based on the obtained status information associated with the at least one actionable data object element (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0061]-[0063] [0065]; See at least updating task and data object completion status. Completion status is reasonably a form of actionability status); and updating, in real-time over the network, the plurality of data objects so that users have up to date information regarding a status of at least one of the plurality of data objects, the updating comprising providing the at least one identified actionable data object element (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0019] [0032]-[0034] [0065]-[0067]; See at least updating and synchronization of data object modifications and status information).
With respect to each data object element being associated with an actionability status, Fahrni discloses a task/data object completion status indicator which indicates whether a task, i.e., a data object element, is completed or not. This indicator setting/toggle is reasonably a form of actionability status that is indicative of whether a task is actionable, not actionable, or completed.
However, Fahrni fails to specify that the actionability status is based on at least one data object element dependency.
However, as evidenced by Knijnik, it is well-known in the art to allocate or assign tasks based on requisite completion of tasks/functions on which a present/assignable task is dependent (Knijnik et al.; paragraphs [0099]-[0100] [0115]-[0117]; See at least requirement that predecessor tasks are completed before specified tasks are allocated and presented for execution by participant).
Knijnik discloses wherein each data object element is associated with an actionability status, the actionability status determined based on at least one data object element dependency (Knijnik et al.; paragraphs [0099]-[0100] [0115]-[0117]; See at least requirement that predecessor tasks are completed before specified tasks are allocated and presented for execution by participant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the display of task/data objects based on an associated completion status indicator features of Fahrni by further including prioritization and determination of actionability of tasks based on requisite dependencies and timelines as taught by Kniknik. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of allocating and presenting data object elements/tasks to users in a project environment. As Fahrni discloses the advantageous use of displaying of task/data objects based on an associated completion status indicator in the context of a system and method for allocating and presenting data object elements/tasks to users in a project environment and Kniknik similarly discloses the utility of prioritization and determination of actionability of tasks based on requisite dependencies and timelines in the context of a system and method for allocating and presenting data object elements/tasks to users in a project environment, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of providing an environment in which teams of experts in different locations and/or different disciplines can work together to improve project success through the use of known project management tools to facilitate the timely completion of project related tasks and milestones.
With respect to claim 2, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein updating the plurality of data objects comprises providing, via the GUI, only data objects associated with actionable data object elements (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0061]-[0063] [0065]; See at least tasks and data objects displayed to the assignee are limited to tasks allocated to the assignee based on determination of completion status).
With respect to claim 3, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein updating the plurality of data objects comprises providing, via the GUI, only actionable data object elements (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0061]-[0063] [0065]; See at least tasks and data objects displayed to the assignee are limited to tasks allocated to the assignee based on determination of completion status).
With respect to claim 4, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the at least one actionable data object element comprises at least one of an actionable milestone and an actionable task (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0032]-[0033] [0038] [0067]; See at least remote access via client-server configuration and GUIs. See further entry and updating of completion status of task/object).
With respect to claim 5, as noted above, Fahrni fails to specify that the actionability status is based on at least one data object element dependency.
However, Knijnik discloses a method wherein the at least one data object element dependency comprises at least one of at least one milestone dependency and at least one task dependency (Knijnik et al.; paragraphs [0099]-[0100] [0115]-[0117]; See at least requirement that predecessor tasks are completed before specified tasks are allocated and presented for execution by participant).
Regarding claim 5, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 5 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 6, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein storing the plurality of data objects comprises a plurality of different data objects and wherein identifying comprises identifying a plurality of actionable data object elements associated with different data objects (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0030]-[0033] [0048]; See at least GUI’s generated for display of data objects and tasks for assignors and assignees).
With respect to claim 7, while Fahrni discloses visualization of data object elements/tasks including completion status and/or due date. Fahrni fails to specify an order of presentation/visualization based on dates of other timeline associated prioritizations.
However, Knijnik discloses a method including updating a graphical user interface to present a plurality of identified actionable elements in an order determined by a characteristic associated with the actionable element, the characteristic comprising at least one of a deadline, a time factor, a notification setting, an associated execution deadline, an associated initial expected execution date, an associated dynamic expected execution date, and an associated delay time (Knijnik et al.; paragraphs [0109]-[0111]; See at least ordering or prioritizing tasks based on adjustments to deadlines).
Regarding claim 7, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 7 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 8, as noted above, Fahrni fails to specify that the actionability status is based on at least one data object element dependency.
However, Knijnik discloses a method wherein an actionability status of actionable is associated with a data object element having no dependencies or a data object element whose dependencies have been satisfied, and wherein an actionability status of not actionable is associated with a data object element whose dependencies have not been satisfied (Knijnik et al.; paragraphs [0099]-[0100] [0115]-[0117]; See at least requirement that predecessor tasks are completed before specified tasks are allocated and presented for execution by participant).
Regarding claim 8, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 8 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 9, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method comprising automatically updating the actionability status of the at least one actionable data object element based on the obtained status information, wherein updating the actionability status of the at least one actionable data object element comprises changing the actionability status of the at least one actionable data object element from actionable to completed (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0059]-[0061] [0067]; See at least assignment of tasks/objects to assignee based on determination/identification of task completion status/indicator/toggle, i.e., not completed is reasonably a form of “actionable”).
With respect to claim 10, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein automatically updating the actionability status of the at least one different data object element comprises changing the actionability status of the at least one different data object element from not actionable to actionable based on at least one of the obtained status information associated with the at least one actionable data object element and an updated actionability status associated with the at least one actionable data object element (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0019] [0032]-[0034] [0065]-[0067]; See at least updating and synchronization of data object modifications and status information).
With respect to claim 11, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method further comprising obtaining assignment information associated with the at least one actionable data object element, the assignment information comprising at least one of a department, an individual, and a plurality of individuals responsible for performing actions associated with completing the at least one actionable data object element, wherein updating the plurality of data objects comprises providing, via the GUI, a plurality of data objects so that each user associated with the assignment information has immediate access to up to date data objects (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0064]-[0065]; See at least determining and identifying assignee for tasks. See further assignment and generation of interface for accessing that tasks/object by the assignee).
With respect to claim 12, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method further comprising automatically assigning the at least one actionable data object element based on the obtained assignment information (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0064]-[0065]; See at least determining and identifying assignee for tasks. See further assignment and generation of interface for accessing that tasks/object by the assignee).
With respect to claim 13, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein automatically updating the plurality of data objects further comprises updating at least one of the dynamic expected execution date and the delay time (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0032] [0061]-[0062] [0067]; See at least tasks and data objects displayed to the assignee. See further assignee modifies or adjusts due date, i.e., a form of delay time).
With respect to claim 14, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the plurality of data objects comprises a plurality of data objects for each of a plurality of different projects (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0061]-[0062]; See at least data object and task due date and completion status. See further tasks viewable to assignee including indication of project association for each the task/object.
With respect to claim 15, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the graphical user interface associated with each user is automatically updated to present only identified actionable data object elements which have been assigned to the user (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0061]-[0063] [0065]; See at least tasks and data objects displayed to the assignee are limited to tasks allocated to the assignee based on determination of completion status).
With respect to claim 16, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the identified actionable data object elements accessible by a first user through the graphical user interface are different than the identified actionable data object elements accessible by a second user through the graphical user interface (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0061]-[0063] [0065]; See at least tasks and data objects displayed to the assignee are limited to tasks allocated to the assignee based on determination of completion status).
With respect to claim 17, Fahrni discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the updating comprises automatically updating a graphical user interface associated with each user to present only identified actionable data object elements which have been assigned to the user (Fahrni et al.; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] [0061]-[0063] [0065]; See at least tasks and data objects displayed to the assignee are limited to tasks allocated to the assignee based on determination of completion status).
[6] Claims 19 and 20 substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claim 1 as directed to the enabling system and computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions. With respect to these elements, Fahrni discloses enabling the disclosed method employing analogous systems and executable instructions (See at least Fahrni paragraphs [0048]-[0051][ 0068]). Accordingly, claims 19 and 20 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
[7] Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrni et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0097739 hereinafter ‘Fahrni’) in view of Knijnik et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0249574 hereinafter ‘Knijnik’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paranjape et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0073697 hereinafter ‘Paranjape’).
With respect to claim 18, while Fahrni discloses generating data objects from received project data having different formats, Fahrni fails to specify converting disparate formats into a standardized format for the generated data objects. Kniknik fails to remedy this deficiency.
However Paranjape discloses a method including storing the plurality of data objects in a standardized format, wherein updating comprises converting status information obtained in a non-standardized format to an actionability status in the standardized format and wherein updating comprises providing, via the GUI, the plurality of data objects in the standardized format (Paranjape et al.; paragraphs [0004] [0005]; See at least translating data objects in multiple formats into a standardized format for generation of dashboard display of data object and elements/tasks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the generation of project-related data objects from data having different formats of Fahrni by further including translating data objects in multiple formats into a standardized format for generation of dashboard display of data object and elements/tasks as taught by Paranjape. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of allocating and presenting data object elements/tasks to users in a project environment. As Fahrni discloses the use of generation of project-related data objects from data having different formats in the context of a system and method for allocating and presenting data object elements/tasks to users in a project environment and Paranjape similarly discloses the utility translating data objects in multiple formats into a standardized format for generation of dashboard display of data object and elements/tasks in the context of a system and method for allocating and presenting data object elements/tasks to users in a project environment, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of providing an environment in which teams of experts in different locations and/or different disciplines can work together to improve project success through the use of known project management tools to facilitate the timely completion of project related tasks and milestones.
Conclusion
[8] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nelson et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0371679, paragraphs [0005]-[0006]: Relevant Teachings: Nelson discloses a system/method that provides tools for the design of complex data objects. The system/method is/are constructs and visualizes data objects and associated tasks for insertion into workflows.
Fernandez, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0088569, paragraphs [0025]-[0026]: Relevant Teachings: Fernandez discloses a system/method that provides workflows designed around data objects having component elements/tasks. The system/method is/are monitors data inputs associated with tasks and updates associated data objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT D RINES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625